Gravity Problem Solved

This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.

Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.

" Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea."Bollocks!If I say I have a "theory" that says you can extract unlimited energy from old crisp packets it doesn't mean it's worth investigating; it means I'm a loony.

Logged

Please disregard all previous signatures.

lyner

This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.

Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.

Do you actually 'understand' what this new core-centred theory means?Does gravity only work between certain parts of objects? Which bits?You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?

It means that gravity has a directional component. I have deduced that the fundamental particle doesn't emit gravity particles in all directions.

Core-centered theory is the only way to explain the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths found frozen in standing positions within the permafrost. They are even located within the arctic circle, in near perfect condition with their meat being good enough to eat. I propose a giant comet near-miss pulled on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago. Earthquakes liquified the ground and engulfed the mammoths. The entire landmass then rose by over 6km into the freezing air temperatures above.

Professor Hapgood has analysed the data in detail. I even propose that Siberia was lush with vegetation during the summer at least, necessary to support a population of mammoths in the first place. I further propose that the pull on the inner core created convection currents within the mantle which reduced the amount of heat reaching the crust, hence the start of an ice age.

Not only is it a new theory of gravity but also a new theory of the ice ages.

Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.

I ask again; do you (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!

The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.

You're ignoring the scientific data concerning the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths yourself! A core-centered theory is the only viable option.

My theory of gravity has cause and effect just the same as the standard theory. I'm proposing that the size of the uber-condensed core of is proportional to the planetesimal's total size. Therfore the maths works out pretty much the same on planetary scales.

You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?

If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

"If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Does that sound fair enough?"OK, If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constantit shows you how to calculate the force acting on the two balls. It also lets you calculate the forvce between the eath and the moon.The answer explains planetary motion perfectly.Since it works just fine, but your ideas predict that it wouldn't work, your ideas must be wrong.Please stop wittering on about them.

Logged

Please disregard all previous signatures.

lyner

If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Don't just promise it - show us it- give us some actual NUMBERS! Or bow out gracefully.ps YOU can get the data - School Physics tells you what it will be and the experiments verify it.

To answer this question one must understand what happened to create the moon/effect that it has on this planet.. you might look into the history of the moon and of earth as celestial bodies. There has been talk relating the ancient stories of greek goddess Thea, the mother of the moon with the creation of our only satelite, along with giving the earth the tilt that allows for seasons and the properties that are vital in creating and sustaining life.

I was thinking more of the surface gravity of a steel ball. If this could be determined in the lab and given a specific value for a given size then this should be able to be scaled up to the size of the Earth to give 9.8m/s/s. I'm dubious to whether this could be achieved. Also the experiment should ideally be done away from any other possible influences i.e. in space, on a big a steel ball as possible. I also noted from the Wikipedia entry that the Cavendish experiment and results don't appear quite as clear cut as you may like to think.

Trying to convince people that there is a fundamental problem with gravity is never going to be easy. My main piece of evidence is the mammoth data provided by Charles Hapgood. If you could do me the honour of looking at Sciforums.com in the Astronomy section, 'Did Giant Comet Help Hobbits Reach Flores' to see a lively considered debate over this fascinating subject of a Core-Centered Theory of Gravity, then I will look further into the Cavendish experiment and the concept of big G.

Try and be a little open-minded about my claims for just a bit longer.

On sciforums.com someone has responded that the Sun's gravitational influence has been measured to be 0.1 grains (force) greater on a 150lb person at noon rather than at midnight. It is just that it is such a small amount that we can't notice it.

My reply is that why is the Sun's gravitational influence on 150lb of seawater so many more orders of magnitude greater than this? We can see the effect of the rise of the seawater by the Sun with our eyes.

I've just thought of the answer. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (or everyday) matter. For dark matter it is much greater. I am proposing that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. Therefore all the calculations of their weight using the Cavindish value of G, the universal constant of newtonian gravitation are underestimates. This is therefore a solution for the Missing Mass problem as well! It all fits.